Editorial: An order too far on prison crowding

2013-09-26 15:27:20

When Gov. Jerry Brown assumed office in January 2011, he inherited a state prison system operating at 174 percent of design capacity, and a federal court order to lower that figure to 137.5 percent by the end of this year.

We believe the Brown administration has made a good-faith effort to comply with the order, from a three-judge panel.

Indeed, on Mr. Brown’s watch, the state inmate population has shrunk to roughly 124,000 (as of last week) from 146,000, equivalent to 144 percent of design capacity.

That progress is a direct result of 2011 public safety “realignment” legislation – enacted at the behest of the governor – that diverted some 28,000 low-level offenders and parole violators to county jails instead of state prison.

The problem is the Brown administration doesn’t think it can get to 137.5 percent by the deadline. So, it recently asked the judges for a three-year extension.

The court this week extended the deadline, but for only four weeks. In the meantime, the judges issued an injunction forbidding the state to “increase the number of inmates who are housed in out-of-state facilities.”

The Brown administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the injunction.

We continue to believe that it should not take the state another three years to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. We also believe the Brown administration has ample grounds to challenge the lower court’s latest action.

Because the three-judge panel not only insists that California get to 137.5 percent – down about another 9,600 inmates – by Jan. 27, it also tells the state how it may and may not meet the target.

Indeed, to comply with the court order, the Legislature approved a measure this month that set aside $315 million for transferring inmates to county jails and out-of-state private prisons.

However, the judges think they know better than both the governor and the Legislature.

They ordered the Brown administration to “meet and confer” with the court next month to discuss “a durable solution to the prison crowding problem,” including how the state ought to start treating “three-strikers,” juveniles, the aged and medically infirm, illegal immigrants and low-risk offenders in the system.

In its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Brown administration argued that the court order “disregards the law and the role of the judiciary.”

And while we have sided with the lower court on previous prison-related disputes with the governor, we side with the administration on this issue.